Review of Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security

Mark Z. Jacobson Atmosphere/Energy Program

Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Stanford University

The Energy Seminar, Stanford University October 1, 2008

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Causes of Global Warming

Tem

per

ature

Chan

ge

Sin

ce 1

750 (

oC

)

Green-housegases

Fossil-fuel

+ biofuelsoot

particles

Urbanheat

island

Coolingparticles

Netobserved

globalwarming

M.Z. Jacobson

Comparison of Energy Solutions to Global Warming

Electricity Sources Vehicle Technologies Wind turbines Battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) Solar photovoltaics (PV) Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) Geothermal power plants Tidal turbines Wave devices Concentrated solar power (CSP) Hydroelectric power plants Nuclear power plants Coal with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)

Liquid Fuel Sources Corn ethanol (E85) Flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) Cellulosic ethanol (E85)

Effects Examined Resource abundance Carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions

Lifecycle Opportunity cost emissions from planning-to-operation delays Leakage from carbon sequestration Nuclear war / terrorism emission risk from nuclear-energy

Air pollution mortality Water consumption Footprint on the ground Spacing required Effects on wildlife Thermal pollution Water chemical pollution / radioactive waste Energy supply disruption Normal operating reliability

Global Renewable Energy Resources

Max Potential Current Wind over land > 6.9 m/s (TW) 72 47 0.02 Solar over land (TW) 1700 340 0.001 Geothermal (TW) 160 0.15 0.007 Hydroelectric (TW) 1.9 <1.9 0.32 Wave+tidal (TW) 3.5 0.5 0.00006

Global electric power demand (TW) 1.6-1.8 Global overall power demand (TW) 9.4-13.6

Archer and Jacobson (2005) www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/ Mean 80-m Wind Speed in North America

Lifecycle CO2e of Electricity Sources

0

100

200

300

400

500

600L

ifec

ycl

e g-C

O2e/

kW

h

Win

d

CS

P Geo

ther

mal

Sola

r-P

V

Tid

al

Wav

e

Hydro Nucl

ear

Coal

-CC

S

Time Between Planning & Operation Nuclear: 10-19 y (lifetime 40 y)

Site permit (NRC): 3.5 y minimum with new regs. – 6 y Construction permit approval and issue 2.5-4 y Construction time 4-9 years (Low value Europe/Japan)

Hydroelectric: 8-16 y (lifetime 80 y) Coal-CCS: 6-11 y (lifetime 35 y) Geothermal: 3-6 y (lifetime 35 y) Ethanol: 2-5 y (lifetime 40 y) CSP: 2-5 y (lifetime 30 y) Solar-PV: 2-5 y (lifetime 30 y) Wave: 2-5 y (lifetime 15 y) Tidal: 2-5 y (lifetime 15 y) Wind: 2-5 y (lifetime 30 y)

Opportunity-Cost CO2e of Electricity Sources

0

100

200

300

400

500

600O

pport

unit

y-C

ost

g-C

O2e/

kW

h

Win

d

CS

P

Geo

ther

mal

Sola

r-P

V

Tid

al

Wav

e

Hydro N

ucl

ear

Coal

-CC

S

Nuclear Energy/Weapons Risks “There is no technical demarcation between the military and civilian reactor and there never was one” (Los Alam. Rept. LA8969MS,UC-16)

42 countries have fissionable material to produce weapons.

9 have nuclear weapons stockpiles (US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, N. Korea)

22 of 42 countries with fissionable material have facilities in nuclear energy plants to produce enriched uranium or to separate plutonium

13 of the 42 countries are active in producing enriched uranium or separating plutonium.

 Spread of nuclear weapons material is caused by the spread of nuclear energy.

Nuclear weapons treaties safeguard only 1% of the world’s highly-enriched uranium and 35% of the plutonium.

Toon et al. (2007)

Leakage From Carbon Sequestration Leakage rate (Tg/yr)

L = I - S(t) / t where

I = injection rate t = time (years) S = stored mass (Tg)

S(t) = S(0)e-t/t + tI(1-e-t/t )

t = e-folding lifetime of stored material against leakage (years)

High est. t=100,000 (1% leakage over 1000 years, IPCC, 2005 Low est. t=5000 years (18% over 1000 years – Natural gas

storage has leaked up to 10% over 1000 years, IPCC, 2005)

War/Leakage CO2e of Nuclear, Coal

0

100

200

300

400

500

600E

xplo

sion o

r L

eak g

-CO

2e/

kW

h

Nuclear:One exchange of

50 15-kt weapons over 30 ydue to expansion of uranium

enrichment/plutonium separationin nuclear-energy facilities

worldwide

Coal-CCS:1-18% leakage of sequesteredcarbon dioxide in 1000 years

Total CO2e of Electricity Sources

0

100

200

300

400

500

600T

ota

l g-C

O2e/

kW

h

Win

d

CS

P Geo

ther

mal

Sola

r-P

V

Tid

al

Wav

e

Hydro

Nucl

ear

Coal

-CC

S

Lifecycle CO2-Equivalent Emissions Corn and Cellulosic Ethanol

Delucchi (2006)* Accounts for - seeding, fertilization, irrigation, cultivation, crop transport, refining, distribution, combustion. - climate impacts of BC, other PM, NO, CO - detailed nitrogen cycle, basic landuse/price impacts

U.S. corn ethanol ~2.4% less CO2-eq. emis. than light-duty gasoline (China +17%; India +11%; Japan +1%, Chile -6%) Switchgrass ethanol ~52.5% less CO2-eq. emis. than LDG -

Searchinger et al. (2008)# Adds gridded global landuse/price impacts U.S. corn ethanol ~90% more CO2-eq. than gasoline Switchgrass ethanol ~50% more CO2-eq. than LDG

*www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2006/UCD-ITS-RR-06-08.pdf #Science 319, 1238 (2008)

Percent Change in U.S. CO2 From Converting to BEVs, HFCVs, or E85

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50P

erce

nt

chan

ge

in a

ll U

.S. C

O2 e

mis

sions

Win

d-B

EV

-32.5

to -

32.7

Win

d-H

FC

V -

31.9

to -

32.6

PV

-BE

V -

31.0

to -

32.3

CS

P-B

EV

-32.4

to -

32.6

Geo

-BE

V -

31.1

to -

32.3

Tid

al-B

EV

-31.3

to -

32.0

Wav

e-B

EV

-31.1

to -

31.9

Hydro

-BE

V -

30.9

to -

31.7

Nuc-

BE

V -

28.0

to -

31.4

CC

S-B

EV

-17.7

to -

26.4

Corn

-E85

Cel

-E85

-0.7

8 t

o +

30.4

-16

.4 t

o +

16.4

Comparison of Emission Assumptions With Recent CARB and Other Data

Percent change E85 minus gas

Cert data (2006) Jacobson (2007) NMOG +45% +19.6% NOx -29.7% -30%

Whitney (2007) Jacobson (2007) Benzene -64% -79% 1,3-butadiene -66% -10% Acetaldehyde +4500% +2000% Formaldehyde +200% +60%

0 0.5 1 1.5 20

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

ROG (ppmC)

NO

x(g) (

ppm

v)

0 .4

0.32

0.24

0.160.

08 =

O3(g

), pp

mv

Ozone isopleth

Effect in 2020 of E85 vs. Gasoline on Ozone and Health in Los Angeles

Change in ozone deaths/yr due to E85: +120 (+9%) (47-140) Changes in cancer/yr due to E85: -3.5 to +0.3

Upstream Lifecycle Emissions Gasoline, Corn-E90, Cellulosic-E90

0.1

1

10

100

1000 RFGCorn-E90Cel-E90

Upst

ream

Lif

ecycl

e E

mis

sions

(g/m

illi

on-B

TU

-fuel

)

59.2

CO NMOC NO2 SO

2 N

2O CH

4 BC

342

207

42.1

240

31.3

80.3

847

419

52

.9 75.5

17.1

0.6

84.3

37.5

221.1

236.3

109.8

0.5

3.5 4.1

DeLucchi, 2006

Low/High U.S. Air Pollution Deaths For 2020 BEVs, HFCVs, E85, Gasoline

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

3500020

20

U.S

. V

ehic

le E

xh

aust

+L

ifec

ycl

e+N

uc

Dea

ths/

Yea

r

Win

d-B

EV

20

-100

+7.2W

ind

-HF

CV

80

-380

PV

-BE

V 1

90-7

90

CS

P-B

EV

80-1

40

Geo

-BE

V 1

50

-740

Tid

al-B

EV

320-6

60

Wav

e-B

EV

390-7

50

Hy

dro

-BE

V 4

50-8

60

Nuc-BEV 640-2170-27,540

CC

S-B

EV

28

80

-690

0

Corn

-E8

5 1

5,0

00

-15,9

35

Cel

-E8

5 1

5,0

00

-16,3

10

Gas

oli

ne

15

,00

0

Number of Plants to Run All U.S. Vehicles as Battery-Electric

Nuclear: 202-275 850 MW plants Hydroelectric: 270-365 1300 MW plants Coal-CCS: 460-1010 425 MW plants Geothermal: 1500-2250 100 MW plants CSP: 5900-15,400 100 MW plants Solar-PV: 4.6-12.5 billion 160 W panels Wave: 770,000-1,275,000 0.75 MW devices Tidal: 419,000-1,000,000 1 MW turbines Wind: 73,000-144,000 5 MW turbines

Ratio of Footprint Area of Technology to Wind-BEVs for Running U.S. Vehicles

0.1

10

103

105

107

109

1011

Low ratioHigh ratio

Rat

io o

f F

ootp

rint

Are

a of

Ener

gy T

echnolo

gy t

o

Win

d-B

EV

for

Runnin

g U

.S. O

nro

ad V

ehic

les

Win

d-B

EV

Win

d-H

FC

V CS

P-B

EV

PV

-BE

V

Geo

-BE

VT

idal

-BE

VW

ave-

BE

VH

ydro

-BE

V

Nuc-

BE

VC

CS

-BE

V Corn

-E85

Cel

-E85

Cal

iforn

iaR

hode

Isla

nd

Percent of U.S. (50 states) for Footprint + Spacing to Run U.S. Vehicles

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40P

erce

nt

of

U.S

. la

nd F

or

Tec

hnolo

gy

Spac

ing t

o P

ow

er U

.S. V

ehic

les

Win

d-B

EV

0.3

5-0

.70

+7.2W

ind-H

FC

V 1

.1-2

.1

PV

-BE

V 0

.077-0

.18

CS

P-B

EV

0.1

2-0

.41

Geo

-BE

V 0

.0067-0

.0077

Tid

al-B

EV

0.0

17-0

.040

Wav

e-B

EV

0.2

1-0

.35

Hydro

-BE

V 1

.9-2

.6

Nuc-

BE

V 0

.045-0

.061

CC

S-B

EV

0.0

26-0

.057

Corn

-E85 9

.84-1

7.6

Cel

-E8

5 4

.7-3

5.4

Cal

iforn

ia 4

.41

Rhode

Isla

nd 0

.0295

Area to Power 100% of U.S. Onroad Vehicles

Map: www.fotw.net

Corn E85 9.8-17.6%

Cellulosic E85 4.7-35.4%

(low-industry est. high-data)

Wind-BEV turbine spacing 0.35-0.7%

Solar PV-BEV 0.077-0.18%

Wind-BEV Footprint 1-2.8 km2

Water Consumed to Run U.S. Vehicles

U.S. water demand = 150,000 Ggal/yr 0

5000

10000

15000

20000W

ater

consu

mp

tion

(G

gal

/yea

r) t

o r

un U

.S.

veh

icle

s

Win

d-B

EV

1-2

+7.2W

ind-H

FC

V 1

50

-190

PV

-BE

V 5

1-7

0

CS

P-B

EV

10

00-1

36

0

Geo

-BE

V 6

.4-8

.8

Tid

al-B

EV

1-2

Wav

e-B

EV

1-2

Hydro-BEV 5800-13,200

Nuc-

BE

V 6

40

-13

00

CC

S-B

EV

72

0-1

20

0

Corn-E85 12,200-17,000

Cel

-E8

5 6

40

0-8

80

0

Matching Hourly Electricity Demand in 2020 With 80% Renewables

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

ele

ctri

city

(M

W)

time of day, PST

Renewables for Load-Matching, July 2020

Geothermal

Wind

Solar

Hydro

Remaining

Hoste et al. (2007)

Aggregate Wind Power (MW) From 81% of�Spain’s Grid Versus Time of Day, Oct. 26, 2005

Overall Scores/Rankings (Lowest is Best)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Over

all

Sco

re o

f T

ech

nolo

gy C

om

bin

atio

n

Win

d-B

EV

2.0

9+7.2

Win

d-H

FC

V 3

.22

PV

-BE

V 5

.26

CS

P-B

EV

4.2

8

Geo

-BE

V 4

.60

Tid

al-B

EV

4.9

7

Wav

e-B

EV

6.1

1

Hydro

-BE

V 8

.40

CC

S-B

EV

8.4

7

Corn

-E85 1

0.6

0

Cel

-E85 1

0.7

0

Nuc-

BE

V 8

.50

Recommended Not recommended

Summary Among many vehicle options, wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs have the greatest benefit and least impact in terms of solving climate, pollution, landuse, water supply problems. Wind requires 2-6 orders of magnitude less land footprint than any other option.

CSP-, hydro-, geothermal-, PV-, tidal-, wave-BEVs also extremely beneficial. Hydro-BEVs recommended due to load balancing ability.

Nuclear-BEVs, coal-CCS-BEVs are less beneficial options for addressing climate/air pollution and should not be favored at expense of other options.

Corn-E85, cellulosic-E85 detrimental to climate, air quality, land, water, undernutrition compared with other technologies. Should not be included in policy options to address climate or air pollution.

More at www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm

Number of 5 MW Wind Turbines in 7-8.5 m/s winds to Eliminate All U.S.

CO2 2007

C

Coalelectricity(121-185)

Oil electricity(3-5)

Natural gaselectricity(53-81)

Other(139-230)

Onroadvehicles(battery)(73-144)

Total (2007)389-645

Land Area For 50% of US Energy From Wind

Map: www.fotw.net

Turbine area

touching ground

Spacing between turbines

Alternatively, Water Area For 50% of US Energy From Wind

Map: www.fotw.net

Spacing between turbines